Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Just as an aside:
In other jurisdictions things can be different – just so anyone reading from another state is aware. Eg. in the ACT, the default rules require an unopposed resolution of a general meeting to do any sort of unit alteration. However, an OC can amend the rules for some lower level of approval eg. for the EC to do it within guidelines agreed by general meeting or just an ordinary resolution. The OC can, by special resolution, amend its rules just about any way it likes to specify what sort of approval is needed for what sorts of unit alterations.
The decision to engage a new manager or renew the contract of the old manager is a decision for a general meeting, not the EC. However, it is the job of the EC to do the homework and legwork and make a recommendation and put a motion to the OC at a general meeting. The resolution of the meeting authorises the EC to sign the new contract.
You could put a motion to change to a particular new manager. If it fails the contract with the old manager probably has a clause to go month to month, but you should check.
It is a long time since our OC changed managers but we are about to go out into the market ourselves to see what it is like. We were very pleased with the particular manager we first had at Independent in 2008-9 but she moved to a different position then retired. We had some others who varied from so-so to pretty good. My main complaint is that we seem to have manager changed on us a bit too often – 7 in 8 years. It takes a while for each to get to know how our EC likes to do things. We are quite hands-on so the managing agent really only deals with the mechanical matters of keeping the accounts, paying bills etc.
I suspect that Independent are realising that their customers don’t like the turnover and so have recently moved to having us managed by ‘teams’ albeit with one main person still.
There are likely local government regulations about noise. If you are not getting satisfaction from the committee of the owners corporation, you could try local government. They will probably want clear documentation of the types of noise, when and where they occurred and so on.
Find out what the local regulations are. If they are being contravened, try the police. If there are then repeated, police-documented, valid noise complaints you would really be building a good case for action that the owners corporation would find harder to ignore.
Enlist neighbours. If you are being bothered, perhaps others are too. On the other hand, if none of your neighbours are bothered, consider that you might be expecting too much quiet while living in close proximity to other people.
I think you will need to explain the background more clearly to get any advice. For a start, what were the motions?
Not sure about elsewhere but in the ACT owners and tenants are held jointly and separately responsible for breaches of the rules/bylaws.
It might be arguable that the OC is responsible to repair since it is a construction defect, but I am not certain. Usually individual owners are responsible to do repair and maintenance to class B units. However, regardless of whether the OC would be obliged to repair, I suggest it should.
By ensuring that all the buildings are safe, the OC would avoid the risk of being found to have been negligent.
I suggest the EC is obliged to immediately notify the OC’s insurer of the problem and its proposed course of action.
Since all units are likely to have the same problem, either now or as a risk in the future, it would be cheaper for the OC as a whole to fix the problem for all units. There are, therefore, no good grounds for anyone to object to fixing it for all units.
While maintenance of class B units usually falls to the individual unit owners, from s.24(1)(g), the OC can pass a special resolution making the OC responsible to repair this specific defect of the roof trusses. “An owners corporation for a units plan must maintain the following: … as authorised by a special resolution (if any)—all buildings on all class B units on the units plan. Example—par (g) a special resolution authorising the owners corporation to paint all buildings on the class B units and to carry out roofing and structural repairs to all class B units, but excluding responsibility for internal painting and minor repairs of class B units“
So, in this case, you would have a special resolution just authorising the repair of this specific defect of the trusses of all units, but excluding all other repairs.
I would strongly recommend that your EC writes again to all unit owners proposing to arrange for an engineer to inspect all units and then for a builder to make all repairs recommended by the engineer. It should notify a general meeting to put a motion authorising that pursuant to s.24(1)(g). I think the resolution should authorise the OC to arrange with the owner of each unit for inspection by a structural engineer and then make the repair of any defects of the roofing trusses with the cost to be taken from the contingency component of your sinking fund.
From s.83(1)(f) “For this division, expected sinking fund expenditure means expenditure for the following purposes that the owners corporation reasonably expects will be necessary to maintain in good condition the common property and any other property it holds: … for a building on a class B unit—any maintenance … that is authorised by a special resolution under section 24 (1) (g)”
Your resolution should also amend the sinking fund plan to include 1) using some of the contingency funding for this purpose, and 2) increasing the sinking fund levy as necessary to rebuild the contingency component over the next several years.
If you have the default rule 10, the EC would use that to appoint first the engineer and then the builder as its representatives to enter the units (at a reasonable time) to undertake the maintenance.
There is a risk that someone will get the wrong end of the stick and not understand that the EC is seeking to minimise the costs to all owners of something they have to address. I suggest acting quickly but with clear communication.
If you want to talk about it, you can get in touch via the personal message feature of this site.
One thing to establish is whether you are class A or class B units. What you describe sounds like townhouses, so almost certainly class B. I’ll reply later. One short answer would be that usually each unit would be responsible for its own maintenance. However, if it is due to a construction defect, then it is probably the OC’s responsibility, the builder being long gone. If all units have the same problem, then it would make sense for the OC to deal with it collectively, whether that is required or not.
If I were on your EC, I would be looking at getting one engineer to look at all units.
I can respond more later.
Peter.
For those interested, I just posted our animal keeping rule as a new topic.
However, if strata schemes enshrine council zoning restrictions in their by-laws (which is clearly not trying to supersede superior laws) then the strata committee can pursue miscreants themselves without waiting for the council to do something.
Most by-laws/rule/articles of OC have a catch-all by-law which states something like the one our OC has: “A unit owner must not use the unit or the common property, or permit them to be used, to contravene a law in force in the ACT.”
So, as Jimmy suggests, an OC can deal with someone via an infringement notice if they are causing the OC to be non-compliant with zoning regulations or whatever, even if the matter is not explicitly set out in its own by-law.
On the matter of allowing a friend or relative stay in your unit for a few days while you are away, if they are not paying they are not leasing the unit. If they are paying, I would guess its a bit of a grey zone if there is no lease agreement. On the other hand, who is to say they are not just helping out with the utility bills or groceries. Frankly, I would not worry if you really are just letting a visitor stay on a few days while you are away. If they really are genuine visitors and it is not a commercial arrangement, I don’t think the OC or EC would get far trying to stop you.
I suspect you would not get far unless there were something in writing from the person wishing to attend by phone such as a request to the managing agent or the chair to attend by phone as per previous arrangements made reasonably in advance of the meeting.
The office of fair trading is more likely to be interested if the outcome of a close vote could have been different with one more attendee.
I am not up to speed on whether NSW (where I presume you are) has anything on attendance by phone. In the ACT the legislation is silent on that and only provides for attending in person, by appointing proxy or lodging an absentee vote on notified matters.
In the ACT, in the absence of legislation or any case precedent that I am aware of, I would say it is up to the chair to decide whether to accept attendance by phone. A fair reason for not accepting would be insufficient notice of the request to enable conferencing facilities to be set up.
In my experience, people unable to attend but with an axe to grind have appointed a proxy and provided that person with a list of questions.
Is there a managing agent? You can request to view the OC records.
That said, when we reviewed our rules (ACT-speak for By-laws), we had correspondence back and forth between the EC and a lawyer and I don’t think it would have been very helpful to share all that with the owners generally. I think it would have been more confusing than enlightening.
What we did do was distribute several rounds of draft rules for comment from owners. We wrote an accompanying background paper each time which included a considerable amount of explanation which reflected both the lawyer’s advice, responses to earlier feedback from owners, discussion about what certain parts of the rules were intended to achieve, and why we didn’t include some things that had been suggested.
Do you have any specific concerns about particular aspects of the ‘pushed through’ rules? We had one or two owners who managed to ‘get the wrong end of the stick’ about some of our rule amendments. Frankly rather bizarre interpretations. Perhaps Flatchatters can comment on whether certain provisions of your by-laws are conventional or unusual or even invalid due to inconsistency with legislation?
In the ACT, a unit owner must give an address for correspondence which must be kept on the unit roll. The OC is only required to send meeting notices to the address on the roll. It is possible to opt for electronic notices instead (IE by email). I expect it is similar elsewhere.
Anything else, such as arrangements to make phone calls, would be beyond the requirements for proper meeting notices and falls into the category of an informal or courtesy arrangement. If the formal requirements for meeting notices have been met, I doubt the Office of Fair Trading would be interested.